In a recent interview in the Fletcher
Forum (excerpted with its permission), University of Pennsylvania law professor Lani
Guinier explained flaws in single-member district, winner-take-all elections.

A simple, winner-takes-all system seems so
normal to Americans because it is what we are used to. If you look at in context however,
the only countries that still use single member district, winner-takes-all plurality
systems exclusively, are former colonies of Great Britain.

Most of the rest of the world has moved to
some system of proportional representation or some system in which there are multiple
forms of representing voters. The reason they have moved to alternative election systems
is because they have learned, in part, from our mistakes. The United States may have been
one of the first democracies, but that does not mean we have the last word on what a
democracy is.

Our approach essentially allocates power
by geographic regions. It groups people together based on where they live and it assigns
them a single representative: it aggregates a group of people who are in what we call a
district, and it gives them one person to represent them. We then have an election, people
vote, and whoever gets the most votes in that particular election gets all of the power.

Technically, then, 51% of the people in
the district can get 100% of the power. The assumption is that the 51% of the people who
have the most votes and therefore elect the representative, are going to elect someone who
will represent all of the people in the district, including the 49% who did not vote for
him or her.

That assumption is based on the
"golden rule," or principle of reciprocity, which says that whoever is
in the
majority today will not be permanently in the majority but has to worry
about potential defectors who may join with today's minority
to become the next governing coalition. Therefore, in order to insure
that the members of
the current majority will be treated fairly when they are in the
minority, the current
majority treats the current minority fairly. That is one of the reasons
that we think of
simple winner-takes-all majority rule as being fair.

However, there are other ways in which you
can justify simple majority rule if you think about a district or a geographic unit as
simply one unit within a much larger territory. If the territory is subdivided in a way
that is "representative," then presumably (and the simple majority,
winner-takes-all rule rests upon this presumption), the 49% in one district may be a
majority in another district. It is therefore assumed that this group gets direct
representation of its interests from people who are elected in other districts by
like-minded voters.

There is a second assumption: that the 49%
in our hypothetical district is treated fairly by the governing majority, and is directly
represented by majorities in other districts that were elected by like-minded voters. The
group that is in the minority does not have to wait for a time when it becomes a majority
in that district in order to be treated fairly. But it is essentially a principle of
virtual representation, or vicarious representation, to claim that the present minority is
represented or has surrogate representatives who, though not elected by it, are responsive
to its interests.

A third assumption that undergirds simple,
winner-takes-all majority rule in these districts is that the district itself represents
some kind of group that is cohesive or has enough similar interests that a single
representative can fairly provide constituent service. For example, I live in Pennsylvania
and I am assumed to be represented by two Senators even if I did not vote for them
because, as a resident of this state, I have certain interests that they are going to
represent regardless of our respective politics.

Now those three assumptions about simple,
winner-takes-all majority rule, are flawed when you have a permanent majority or a
majority that monopolizes power. If you have a system in which the majority in one
district is a majority in every district, then the 49% minority is not really represented.
It is represented on the hope or promise of "the golden rule," but it is not
represented in terms of that second assumption I described as the virtual or vicarious
representation principle.

Lani Guinier is author of The
Tyranny of the Majority (Free Press, 1994).

In Detroit, there have been three mayors in the past two years and the current one has come under scrutiny. Perhaps a system like instant runoff voting will help bring political stability to motor city.